0910AW 同主题写作第七期 Argument101 By eric_scut

eric_scutUID: 2304889

TOPIC: ARGUMENT101 - The following appeared in a memo from the president of a company that makes breakfast cereals.

"In a recent study, subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ate no soy products. By fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, we can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. This new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and, at the same time, improve the health of our customers."


请看3楼的修改稿
3# eric_scut





以下是原作

WORDS: 356
TIME: 00:52:56
DATE: 2009-7-10 13:29:23
(修改后403)

The president in this memo recommends fortifying the Wheat-O cereal, a food product, with soy protein, which, he believes, will increase the company profits as well as the customers' health. At first glance, the recommendation appears reasonable based on the study given. However, further examination reveals the fallacies of this argumentation.

First of all, maybe some other constituent, rather than the soy protein, is responsible to the lower cholesterol levels. According to the description of the study, we can only conclude that soybeans, not soy protein, are beneficial to keep people at low cholesterol levels. As we know, soybeans are complicated composition. Without detailed analysis of their components and the function of each component, the president can not assume that it is the soy protein that makes the soybeans good for people's health and then recommend adding soy protein into the company's food product.

Even assuming that the soy protein indeed contribute to low cholesterol levels, injecting the soy protein into Wheat-O cereal may brings
unpredictable side effect which, as a result, would be harmful to people's health. It is common sense that A is good, B is also good, but the merging of A with B may come out an unsatisfying even awkward result. Similarly, it is highly possible that a chemical reaction occurs when some elements in the Wheat-O cereal and the soy protein are in contact and a noxious substance may be produced. Without presenting any research result about the composition of Wheat-O cereal and soy protein, the president can not convince the customers that the new version of Wheat-O will improve their health.

Finally, the president naively claims that the new product should increase company profits. Profit is a function of revenue and expenditure. How much would it cost to commingle the Wheat-O cereal with the soy protein? The president ignored this factor. If the cost is larger compared to the income from the sales to additional consumers, the company will decrease its profits.

In conclusion, the purpose of the president is good. After all, increasing the company's profits and improving the health of the customers are a double-win result. But in order to convince the board of the company to pass his proposal, he still has to give a further study on the result of composing Wheat-O cereal and soy protein. Besides, he has to synthetically analysis the cost and benefit of developing the new version of product.

附上提纲
1. Maybe other components of soybean, rather than soy protein, are responsible for lower cholesterol.
2. Even if it is soy protein that good for people’s health, fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein may bring side effect that is harmful to people’s health.
3. The cost of fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein maybe large, thus decrease the company profits.

xxhhttUID: 2477361

TOPIC: ARGUMENT101 - The following appeared in a memo from the president of a company that makes breakfast cereals.
"In a recent study, subjects who ate soybeans at least five times per week had significantly lower cholesterol levels than subjects who ate no soy products. By fortifying our Wheat-O cereal with soy protein, we can increase sales by appealing to additional consumers who are concerned about their health. This new version of Wheat-O should increase company profits and, at the same time, improve the health of our customers."
WORDS: 356
TIME: 00:52:56
DATE: 2009-7-10 13:29:23
(修改后403)
The president in this memo recommends fortifying the Wheat-O cereal, a food product, with soy protein, which, he believes, will increase the company profits as well as the customers' health. At first glance, the recommendation appears reasonable based on the study given. However, further examination reveals the fallacies of this argumentation.
First of all, maybe some other constituent(s), rather than the soy protein, is (are) responsible to the lower cholesterol levels. According to the description of the study, we can only conclude that soybeans, not soy protein, are beneficial to keep people at low cholesterol levels.(这点我觉得未必，只能说soybean与low level两者有相关关系，并非因果关系，你完全可以不说这句话) As we know, soybeans are complicated composition. Without detailed analysis of their components and the function of each component, the president can not assume that it is the soy protein that makes the soybeans good for people's health and then recommend adding soy protein into the company's food product.
Even （if） assuming that the soy protein indeed contribute to low cholesterol levels, injecting（注射，这个不太好，用add就行了） the soy protein into Wheat-O cereal may brings （bring 请检查好再上传）unpredictable side effect which, as a result, would be harmful to people's health. It is common sense that A is good, B is also good, but the merging of A with B may come out an unsatisfying even awkward （这个词用得很奇怪）result. Similarly, it is highly possible that a chemical reaction occurs when some elements in the Wheat-O cereal and the soy protein are in contact and a noxious substance may be produced. Without presenting any research result about the composition of Wheat-O cereal and soy protein, the president can not convince the customers that the new version of Wheat-O will improve their health.（这个原因很重要，但你说得貌似有些烦）
Finally, the president naively（不要讽刺） claims that the new product should increase company profits. Profit is a function of revenue and expenditure. How much would it cost to commingle the Wheat-O cereal with the soy protein? The president ignored this factor. If the cost is larger compared to the income from the sales to additional consumers, the company will decrease its profits.
In conclusion, the purpose of the president is good. After all, increasing the company's profits and improving the health of the customers are a double-win result. But in order to convince the board of the company to pass his proposal, he still has to give a further study on the result of composing Wheat-O cereal and soy protein. Besides, he has to synthetically analysis the cost and benefit of developing the new version of product.(结尾这句很不错)

附上提纲
1. Maybe other components of soybean, rather than soy protein, are responsible for lower cholesterol.
2. Even if it is soy protein that good for people’s health, fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein may bring side effect that is harmful to people’s health.
3. The cost of fortifying Wheat-O cereal with soy protein maybe large, thus decrease the company profits.
提纲很不错，清楚且句子也不错

整体来说，结构清楚，论证有些烦，语法错误不少 by xxhhtt

eric_scutUID: 2304889

已修改

The president in this memo recommends fortifying the Wheat-O cereal, a food product, with soy protein, which, he believes, will increase the company profits as well as the customers' health. At first glance, the recommendation appears reasonable based on the study given. However, further examination reveals the fallacies of this argumentation.

First of all, the study in the argument reveals a correlation between soybeans and lower cholesterol levels, which, however, does not necessarily mean soybeans cause lower cholesterol levels. Maybe the subjects that ate soybeans at least five times per week are much more concerned with their health than those who do not ate soy products. Or maybe the lower cholesterol is due to their regular exercise or carefulness of diet. Even if the soybeans are indeed beneficial to low cholesterol levels, the soy protein, a nutrient element in soybean, may not contribute to the effect. As we all know, soybeans are complicated composition. It is highly possible that some other constituents or the reactions of some constituents, rather than the soy protein, are responsible to the lower cholesterol levels. Without detailed analysis of their components and the function of each component, the president can not presume that it is the soy protein that makes the soybeans good for people's health and subsequently recommend adding soy protein into the company's food product.

Assuming that the soy protein indeed contribute to low cholesterol levels, adding the soy protein into Wheat-O cereal may bring unpredictable side effect which, as a result, would be harmful to people's health. It is common sense that A is good, B is also good, but the merging of A with B may come out an unsatisfying result. Similarly, it is highly possible that a chemical reaction occurs when some elements in the Wheat-O cereal and the soy protein are in contact and a noxious substance may be produced. Without presenting any research result about the composition of Wheat-O cereal and soy protein, the president can not convince the customers that the new version of Wheat-O will improve their health.

Finally, the president takes it for granted that the new product should increase company profits. Profits are a function of revenue and expense. How much would it take to commingle the Wheat-O cereal with the soy protein? Does it need a special budget to do the research? The president ignored to consider these factors. If the cost of producing the new Wheat-O cereal overweighs the income from the sales to additional consumers, the company will decrease its profits.

In conclusion, the purpose of the president is good. After all, increasing the company's profits and improving the health of the customers are a double-win result. But in order to convince the board of the company to pass his proposal, he still has to give a further study on the result of composing Wheat-O cereal and soy protein. Besides, he has to synthetically analysis the cost and benefit of developing the new version of product.